Creationism's Claims Are Valid
Debate Rounds (3)
Creationism's claims are valid.
Pro - Has 30,000 characters and the burden of proof to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are valid. Pro can also refute Con.
Con - Has only 20,000 characters to refute the validity of Creationism's claims.
*There are no rounds - there are 3 sets of 10,000 characters, and there is no acceptance round...just start debating.
If we accept the resolution.
If we reject the resolution.
Creationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes.
Claims - assertions of the truth of something
Valid - having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
*Definitions - are agreed upon by posting your first argument.
*Definitions - can be changed in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree in the comments section.
May the better argument win.
Having the burden of proof, I am to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are valid.
The universe and life have originated, if we understand what modern science claims. This claim is consistent with a worldview of creation.
I could hypothesize that the universe was originated by a force of creation, which began what we experience as space time.
Further, through the reactions unleashed after the big bang, stars formed, then exploded, creating the elements that are needed for further complexity in the universe. With the development of galaxies, and star systems, planets; further complexity can persist.
The building blocks were then available for the creation of more complex beings. Through the manipulation of natural laws, chemical reactions, and environmental constraints, a seemingly or arguably perfect system was created to take in energy and act on coded information. An extremely complicated machine, an organic machine that through it's coding could adapt and evolve into all the life we see today.
Further, this evolution lead to a capacity to sustain "mind" and acknowledge our surroundings, and question from whence we came.
That blurb takes from things we "know" of science. It is consistent with our understanding even if not entirely agreed upon.
It could be considered: Valid - having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
To Con, I contend that claiming a position does not have a valid or cogent argument, in general, is simply denying the actual argument. More energy should be invested in the argument, then in the denial of such.
I have two problems with Pro's arguments.
1. Pro did not argue for the validity of "specific acts of divine creation," and instead argued for inaccurate "natural processes."
2. Though the words "originate" and "create" are similar in meaning, the origins of the universe do not necessitate creation.
1. Did Pro mention anything divine?
The definitions clearly define Creationism as "specific acts of divine creation."
Nowhere in Pro's 1st 10,000 characters was any mention of divinity or any specific acts thereof.
Pro's one claim of Creationism was Pro's own hypothesis "that the universe was originated by a force of creation."
This force's divinity was neither stated nor supported by Pro.
Furthermore, the definitions clearly define Creationism as "rather than by natural processes."
What's Pro's proof for Creationism?
Pro mentions, "the big bang...building blocks...more complex beings...evolution"
Not only is this counter to the agreed definitions, without Pro providing some "specific act of divine creation" behind these natural processes, Pro does not demonstrate Creationism's claims to be valid.
Pro needs to show divinity in order to fulfill the definition of Creationism.
2. Yeah, I said it...the universe was not created simply because it has an origin.
Understanding what "nothing" is demonstrates why saying the universe was created is somewhat nonsensical.
"Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation.
The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing."
The absence of all of these physical properties, nothing, is a matter of particle physics.
Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable physical field; its existence is ubiquitous.
You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing...
I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothing.
What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is created by constant subatomic particles and their counter parts, antiparticles, popping into existence from nothing and just as quickly popping out of existence by annihilating each other constantly. This is called quantum fluctuation.
The above video is from a legit particle physicist, Lawrence Krauss, who explains the demonstrated concept very well.
In this nothing state, these subatomic particles exist and don't exist at the same time...doesn't sound like something to me.
Particle physicists are correct in calling this state nothing.
This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing for long, such that with the many subatomic particles and antiparticles popping in and out of existence all of the time, energy is inevitably expressed.
Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if subatomic particles appearing from quantum fluctuations eventually lead to an expression, not a creation, of energy, then matter can originate from this unstable quantum nothingness.
So Pro's claim that "the universe was originated by a force of creation, which began what we experience as space time" is inaccurate, because "nothing" is not a force of creation, rather it is a fluctuating unstable state that allows for the expression of--NOT the creation of--matter/energy and...GRAVITY.
Our universe's total energy is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of (+) matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of (-) gravity.
Our universe is a zero-energy universe, and this is an understood principle in modern physics.
From the big bang, we start at a potentially energy dense state the size of a subatomic particle in the quantum fluctuations.
There is no (+) matter/energy or (-) gravity.
I like to express matter and gravity as a set:
[ (+) matter, (-) gravity]
In quantum fluctuations, which is an unstable state of nothing, the set would be expressed as [+0, -0] which of course equals 0 total energy. No energy or gravity to speak of.
But at the big bang, a dense state the size of a subatomic particle, (+) matter/energy were expressed, not created, and so was (-) gravity.
The total energy set of expressed matter and gravity as the universe expands could have looked like:
[ +1, -1] = 0 and then
[ +2, -2] = 0 and then
[ +3, -3] = 0 and so on as the universe expands...
[ +10, -10] = 0 and then
[ +1000, -1000] = 0.
Still 0 total energy, but we have some expressed (+) matter, which is positive energy, and its exact counterbalance of expressed (-) gravity, which is negative energy.
So the big bang's required massive amount of positive energy would be counterbalanced by the amount of negative energy in the form of gravity...total energy = 0, kind of like quantum nothingness.
The Big Bang originated from [+0, -0] = 0 total energy, and the universe exists at [+1000000000000, - 1000000000000] = 0 total energy.
I'm just using hypothetical numbers, but I'm trying to illustrate the concept of lots of (+) matter and energy being cancelled out by lots of (-) gravity as a set.
Our zero energy universe has a total amount of energy that never changes, and thus is NEITHER CREATED nor destroyed, per the 1st law of thermodynamics.
So, simply because the universe has an origin, does not mean that it was created; the universe was expressed positively and negatively [ (+) energy , (-) energy].
Though Pro may disagree with using the adjective "valid" to contrast Creationism, given what we understand about the facts of the big bang and the origins of our universe, positing "specific acts of divine creation" for the origins of our universe does not have "sound basis in fact," and therefore leaves me reasonable in rejecting the validity of Creationism's claims.
I reject the resolution, because Pro has not met their burden of proof to show how specific acts of divinity have a sound basis in fact, nor has Pro explained how an EXPRESSION of positive and negative energy (the big bang) is a specific act of divine CREATION.
"Expression" and "creation" are different terms with different meanings.
I would like to point out that the debate topic is simply "Creationism's Claims Are Valid" with creationism being defined as "The universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes." In this, we must acknowledge that there are a wide variety of creationist claims. I do not assume that I am to defend or argue for them all, but merely for the validity of the argument.
Con has rightfully accused that I did not argue for the validity of specific acts. I was not intending to argue for any specific divine acts validity, but for the validity of the claim of creationism; the universe and life came about through divine acts. The evidence is available for everyone, and although my outlined process may have been inaccurate overall, it was summing up our basic understanding of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, etc...
Con states in his second point that the origins of the universe do not necessitate creation, which is entirely true. It also doesn't preclude it.
I did not specifically mention divine, yet as representing creationism, it is inferred that the origin is caused by the divine. But let me say that. Through a specific act of divine intervention, the universe was brought into being. This is manifest through the big bang, and through the subsequent expansion of the universe.
Con continues to criticize my use of known "natural" processes. But in the defining of this debate, it is on me to explain specifically the universe and living organisms originating from divine acts. We can have everything in our understanding explained with perfect validity through our understood science no matter what we presume BEGAN the universe or life. Creationism can be completely compatible with all of our scientific discoveries. Creationism, in this general sense, posits a cause to the universe and a cause to life. These are both easy targets for creationists to attack as neither has an explanation that is sufficient to science, or is at least theorized. There is no understanding of what came before the big bang. We can hypothesize nothing, and singularities, but those are not evidenced. We can, with equal support, propose the divine. Similarly, with life; we can do our best to create life to the best of our ability and our understanding, we may even succeed in the creation of life. But how likely are we to know how the life we have now originated?
Con claims that I need to show divinity. But why should that be? Can Con show "nothing"? Can Con show how our life originated? Based on the information at hand, it is equally valid to propose natural or divine. The real argument here is that the divine explanation is one that cannot have a grounding or basis in science, as the study of nature, and naturally needs to deviate to the realm of supernatural. But to my understanding, that was not a defined limitation to this debate. I simply suggest that I could posit a divine being as the origination of both our universe and life, and with what we know, that is technically valid.
For the record, I love Lawrence Krauss!
Creationism does not need a sound basis in fact to be valid, it just has to be possible. It will remain possible until (and likely after) we have a sound basis in fact supporting the origins of the universe. Too illustrate, young earth creationists constantly fight a sound basis, being evolution. Their arguments are generally not valid, but they continue. The goal should be argument and education to pull people away from the damaging ideals that tear parts of our future generations away from scientific understanding.
1. "The universe and life came about through divine acts."
If the universe and life came about through divine acts, why are these divine acts contingent on natural processes?
Why does something divine need natural processes to accomplish the universe?
Furthermore, I'm not a definition stickler, but this debate is about Pro defending divine acts RATHER THAN NATURAL PROCESSES for the explanation of the universe and life.
2. "The evidence [for Creationism] is available for everyone."
If the evidence for Creationism is available for everyone, why isn't the evidence for Creationism available for everyone in this debate?
So far, Pro has only mentioned certain natural processes, and baldly asserted that they are guided by divine intervention without any evidence that isolates such an intervention.
How does Pro know that these natural processes are divinely intervened?
3. "My outlined process [for Creationism]...was summing up our basic understanding of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, etc..."
If these naturally-explained understandings are divine, which we agree is antithetical to this debate's definition of Creationism, then Pro needs to explain HOW these natural processes are indicative of the divine.
Yeah, we know that there are series of causes and effects within our natural explanations (science)...why should we consider ANY of these causes to be divine?
How is that valid to do?
Again...divinity in this debate is in contrast to natural processes not contingent on them.
4. "It is inferred that the origin [of the universe] is caused by the divine...[which] is manifest through the big bang, and through the subsequent expansion of the universe."
So the natural explanations for the origins of our universe are in fact indicators of specific divine acts?
Pro needs to mechanistically explain how these divine acts act on the natural processes NOT how the natural processes work. Simply explaining a natural process and labeling it divine is not enough...we need more evidence for divinity.
I cannot stress enough that Creationism's claims, as defined in this debate, exist in opposition to natural processes.
Pro is claiming that his version of creationism REQUIRES natural processes instead of the agreed on version of Creationism that has specific divine acts RATHER than natural processes.
5. "A cause to the universe and a cause to life...[are] easy targets for creationists to attack as neither has an explanation that is sufficient to science, or is at least theorized. "
Quantum fluctuations are a fact. Not a hypothesis like Pro claimed. This fact has also been CONFIRMED by the thermal variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Quantum fluctuations are in fact what Pro claims isn't sufficient.
Check it out for yourself at NASA. They have a map of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the proof of the big bang) with the thermal variations from the initial state of the big bang; those thermal variations are directly proportional to those in quantum fluctuations. Check the maps yourself. NASA has an awesome probe (WMAP) that detects variations in radiation that is very accurate and yields wonderful radiation maps of the universe.
Quantum fluctuations led to the expression of positive and negative energy, our universe, and the subsequent inflation of our universe.
Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms.
As for the origins of life, Abiogenesis is a fact.
Abiogenesis is the fact that life can come from inorganic compounds.
In chemistry, a compound is organic if it is covalently bonded to carbon.
If the compound is not covalently bonded to carbon it is inorganic.
So the distinction between inorganic and organic in chemistry can be very small if you're dealing with carbon compounds. The Miller Urey and replicated experiments showed that with naturally occurring atmospheric gases, inorganic compounds, like those of earlier earth, can become organic compounds.
So let's see how extreme inorganic-->organic is.
Here's an inorganic carbon compound, cyanate
H N C O
Here's an organic compound, an amino acid/building block of life, Glycine
C 2 H 5 N O 2
Is it that much of a leap to say that natural atmospheric pressures likely in earth's history could help spawn a shift from
Ok well then the idea of inorganic-->organic shouldn't seem that radical.
A claim from people who have not looked at the replicated studies of the Miller Urey is that too much oxygen, which would be present in earth's atmosphere, ruins the results of inorganic-->organic.
This is true, but any lowering at all of the oxygen from the typical atmosphere allows for the inorganic-->organic switch proven in the experiments. These oxygen fluctuations are demonstrable.
Once we have amino acids, many opponents to the theory say, well amino acids are just lifeless organic matter...how do you get to replication genetically?
Amino acids react with each other, and if a chain of amino acids, polypeptides, fold onto themselves, they become biologically active.
To quote the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
Once we have biologically active proteins, we are talking about basic genetics.
RNA - a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins.
To me, this is valid, because all claims are mechanistically explained; proposing a divine act behind abiogenesis is invalid, because the mechanism of abiogenesis does not require divinity.
6. "Con claims that I need to show divinity. But why should that be?
Because by not showing divinity, you don't show divine acts; you just show acts. It's kind of like just showing natural processes and not showing divinely-intervened natural processes (counter to the definitions).
7. "Can Con show "nothing"? Can Con show how our life originated?
Yes, and yes.
Quantum fluctuations at [+0, -0] total energy have no matter/energy/gravity/radiation/light/atoms/particles/time/space/laws.
Seems like nothing to me. I'll show nothing again [+0,-0].
This has been confirmed to be what expressed positive and negative energy [+1,-1], or as Pro calls it "what began our universe."
So I have shown nothing [+0,-0], and that this nothing is responsible for the expression of our universe [+1,-1].
Abiogenesis proves that inorganic-->organic.
This shows how our life originated...so have the oxford journals.
Summing it up:
*Pro has not met the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of specific divine acts as the explanations for the origins of our universe and life, and instead has gone counter to the agreed definitions and created a version of creationism that is CONTINGENT ON instead of RATHER THAN natural processes.
*Pro has not provided any evidence for divine acts that led to the universe/life. Check the debate yourself.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
*Pro claims that divine acts are manifest through the big bang. So, to prove divine acts, one just needs to find any naturally explained process and say it's been divinely intervened.
Why does a divine act require natural processes, even though this idea is counter to the debate?
*Pro said that science does not have anything sufficient for the origins of the universe and life.
Quantum fluctuations (the universe) and abiogenesis (life) are not only sufficient to science, they are demonstrable facts that literally any literate person with internet access can see.
The links for these FACTS--not guesses/hypothesis/unfounded inferences--of science are throughout my cited sources. Seriously, check them out with honesty.
Even if science couldn't explain the origins of the universe/life, that doesn't mean, as Pro states, " we can, with equal support, propose the divine."
This is an argument from ignorance fallacy specifically called the god of the gaps.
The violator of this fallacy appeals to our ignorance (science doesn't know) so that they may fill in this gap in our knowledge with, in this case, the divine.
This is fallacious and is similar to what ancient people did with lightning bolts, because there were no scientific explanations of charged particles in clouds, so people inferred divinity; they filled the gap in knowledge with god.
I also argue saying "before the big bang" is nonsensical, because time requires matter and the space between matter, and "before" is a temporal concept contingent on time; time does not exist at [+0,-0] total energy.
But to play into Pro's characterization of the universe, QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS are before the big bang and negate your claim that we don't know.
To conclude, I will leave a quote from Pro:
"Creationism does not need a sound basis in fact to be valid"
Then Pro, you are in the wrong debate.
From the definitions for THIS debate:
"valid - having a sound basis in logic or fact."
The only thing I can say, to sum this up; All the data, evidence, is the same. The difference is in the results, conclusions, or interpretations. Even though the creationists position, to us, seems illogical, we must acknowledge that to them it is entirely valid, and thought out.
I have argued creationists that are very knowledgeable in various areas of science and can argue their case with strong "validity". Is it true? No, more than likely it is not. But just because we disagree with the conclusion, and can show a much more consistence and concise explanation, it does not automatically make their position, or their claim invalid. It may make it wrong, but a scientific argument is often wrong, while still being valid, used, or pursued. So in making an claim, with divine cause, if it follows the evidence no matter who disagrees with the conclusions, it is, or could at least be considered "valid".
I can grant there are many specific creationist claims that are indeed not valid, but we are not talking about each specific claim, to my knowledge. Many of their claims can be considered valid, even if wrong or if we do not agree.
Con, I apologize. I realize this was not the debate you wanted. And I realize that I was not able to sufficiently argue for a view that I do not share.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro, that was agreed to at the beginning. In the first round, Pro didn't really make any impact, they tried to argue that the origin of the universe as accepted by the scientific community could be defined as creation. However this is inconsistent to the definitions Con provided. So far BOP unfulfilled. In the following round, Pro was pretty shaky. They were showing how creationism isn't impossible, but they did little to prove it. Pro also lost a major point when they said "Creationism does not need a sound basis in fact to be valid, it just has to be possible." This is incorrect according to Pro's definition, "having a sound basis in logic or fact." So to conclude. Pro's arguments for creationism were not sufficient, and didn't fulfill the BOP. They were mainly trying to argue that it's impossible for creationism to be supported by facts, and it was unlikely that we would ever find the correct answer. These arguments weren't enough to show that creationist claims are valid
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.